Judgment :- 1. This Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12. 1997 made in O.S. No.106 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram. 2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the Suit before the Trial Court. The Suit was filed under Section 70 of the (Tamil Nadu) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (herein after referred to as Act), seeking a decree to set aside the order, dated 8. 1991 of the first respondent made in S.M.R. No.8/91 and to declare that there is no custom and usage to confer Sri Saari honours to Sri Manavala Mamunigal in Alwar Prakaram of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kancheepuram, on the third day of Brahmotsavam, during the Tamil month of Vaikasi from time immemorial. 3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by both sides, the Trial Court held that the appellant herein is not entitled to the relief sought for and accordingly, the Suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by which, this Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the Suit. According to the appellant, there is merger of the order, dated 6. 1990 and 8. 1991, as per the evidence available on record and that the Trial Court has not considered the same on merits. 4. It is seen that the Trial Court has framed 5 main issues and 2 additional issues. The main issues are: 1. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation ? 2. Whether the Suit is maintainable ? 3. Whether the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? 4. Whether the Court Fee paid is correct ? 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? The additional issues are: 1. Whether the contention that the sum and substance of the orders, dated 04.06.1990 and 09.08.1991 are one and same and the contention that the two orders have, merged is sustainable in law ? 2. Whether the contention of the plaintiff that there was no custom or usage of Satari honour to Sri Manavala Mamuni on the 3rd day and similar honour to the Idol at Sri Ahobila Mutt on the 5th day of Bramhotsavam is true ? 5. 2. Whether the contention of the plaintiff that there was no custom or usage of Satari honour to Sri Manavala Mamuni on the 3rd day and similar honour to the Idol at Sri Ahobila Mutt on the 5th day of Bramhotsavam is true ? 5. It is seen that the Trial Court has answered the Issues No.2 and 3 in favour of the appellant and found that the Suit filed under Section 70 of the Act is maintainable and the same was also not bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The Court fee paid was found to be correct, as per the relevant provisions of law. However, the other issues and additional issues were decided by the Court below against the appellant herein and accordingly, the Suit was dismissed with costs. 6. The points for determination in this Appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation as held by the Court below ? 2. Whether the Trial Court should have held that the order, dated 09.08.1991 passed by the first respondent is beyond the scope of Section 69(2) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, as contended by the appellant and as such liable to be set aside ? 7. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. A.S. Narasimhan for the appellant contended that the Suit was not barred by limitation. It is seen that the Court below has held that there is no need for any pre-suit notice to be sent under Section 80, C.P.C., before filing the Suit. As the Suit was filed after 150 days, the Trial Court has held that the Suit is barred by limitation, as per Section 70 of the Act. 8. Admittedly, the first respondent had passed the impugned order on 9.08.1991 and the appellant herein received the copy of the same on 16.08.1991. As per Section 70 of the Act, the Suit should have been filed within 90 days from 16.08.1991, the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the appellant. However, the Suit was filed before the Civil Court only on 14.01.1992, after a lapse of 150 days and hence, as per the findings of the Court below, the Suit was barred by limitation. 9. However, the Suit was filed before the Civil Court only on 14.01.1992, after a lapse of 150 days and hence, as per the findings of the Court below, the Suit was barred by limitation. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that after receipt of the order passed by the first respondent, notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was issued and for the reply of the other side, two months time has to be added and accordingly, the last date for filing of the Suit was only 13.01.1992 and it being a holiday, the Suit was filed on 14.01.1992, the next day and as such, the Suit was instituted by the appellant, well within the time limit. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision reported in 1989 (1) LW 361 , rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, whereby an earlier decision reported in 1985 (1) MLJ 82 , holding that the notice under Section 80 not necessary, was overruled. 10. It is not in dispute that the Honble Apex Court in the decision, H.H. Srivan Satagopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yathindra Mahadesikan, etc. v. The Executive Officer, etc., 1991 (2) LW 599, has set aside the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. According to Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the Honble Apex Court, while deciding the matter held that the issuance of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is left open. According to the learned Senior Counsel, on the date of the cause of action, for the Suit, namely on 16.08.1991, as per law, there should be pre-suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. and the law was not clearly laid down. 11. Per contra, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. R.V. Ananthakrushnan, for R4 and R5 submitted that this Court has taken a consistent view that Section 80, C.P.C. notice is not necessary for a statutory Suit being filed under Section 70 of the H.R. & C.E. Act and in support of his contention, he cited the following decisions : (a) 1971 (2) MLJ 495 ; (b) 1974 (I) MLJ 215 ; (c) 1981 (2) MLJ 375; (d) 1985 (1) MLJ 82 ; (e) ILR 1980 (2) Mds 213 12. In the decision, M. Sethu v. Commr. for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, AIR 1995 Mad. In the decision, M. Sethu v. Commr. for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, AIR 1995 Mad. 238 , Division Bench of this Court has held as follows : "Thus the statute itself gives the right for filing Suit and prescribes the period within which such Suit has to be filed. The nature of power exercised and the character of orders passed which are to be challenged in the Suit also would militate against the Application of Section 80 C.P.C., to such cases. That being so, application of the provisions under Section 80, C.P.C. is excluded by reason of the special provision made under Section 70 of the Act." In the aforesaid Judgment, it has been made clear that when a statute itself has provision for filing a Suit, that alone will govern the mandatory procedure to be followed and the Division Bench of this Court has taken the same view in Tholappa lyengar, etc. v. Executive Officer, Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam, etc. & 7 others, 1993 (2) LW 537 . 13. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 that even assuming for the sake of argument, without admitting that notice is necessary, the Suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation, by relying on the decision, National Coal Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1988 Patna 338, wherein it has been held by Patna High Court, that the period of notice issued under Section 80, C.P.C. runs concurrently and therefore, there cannot be any further time after 90 days of limitation prescribed under the Act. 14. The Division Bench of this Court in Tholappa Iyengar, etc. v. Executive Officer, Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam, etc. & 7 others, 1993 (2) LW 537 , has held that notice under Section 80, C.P.C is not necessary for instituting a suit under Section 70 of the Act, seeking a decree to set aside the order of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, wherein it has been made clear by this Court, that a statutory Suit filed under Section 70 of the Act, cannot be equated to a Suit filed against a public officer, for which notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is a mandatory requirement. As such, provision of Section 80, C.P.C. is not intended to be used as booby traps against illiterate persons, but are intended to advance justice, as ruled in the decision reported in AIR 1969 SC 634 . 15. It is not in dispute that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a statutory Suit filed under Section 70 of the Act. Such a Suit is being instituted, by way of filing Plaint, under Order 7, C.P.C. and similarly defendants in the Suit are entitled to file written statement and both the parties are entitled to let in fresh evidence and the Court has to consider the evidence both oral and documentary afresh. The Court is not bound by the evidence already recorded by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner and therefore, it is only a statutory Suit filed under Section 70 of the Act and not an Appeal. 16. In the light of the decisions referred above, it is clear that for filing a statutory Suit, under Section 70 of the Act, no legal notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is required. Even in case of sending statutory notice, under Section 80 C.P.C., prior to the filing of the Suit, as per Section 70 of the H.R. & C.E. Act, period of such notice runs concurrently with general period of limitation. In the instant case, the appellant had received a copy of the impugned order, dated 09.08.1991 passed by the first respondent, on 16.08.1991 and therefore, the period of limitation starts from that date, excluding the days admissible as per the Limitation Act and the Suit could have been filed within 90 days. Admittedly, the Suit was filed after 150 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the impugned order passed by the first respondent, though the period of limitation under Section 70 of the Act is only 90 days. Therefore, this Court is of the view in the light of the decisions referred above that the Suit is barred by limitation, as found by the Court below and answered the first point for determination in this Appeal against the appellant. 17. Though the Court below has held that the Suit filed by the appellant herein was barred by limitation, the Court should give findings for all the issues framed in the Suit. 17. Though the Court below has held that the Suit filed by the appellant herein was barred by limitation, the Court should give findings for all the issues framed in the Suit. Had the question of limitation been framed as a preliminary issue, the Trial Court need not go into the other issues after giving a finding on the preliminary issue against the plaintiff. In the instant case, there was no preliminary issue to be decided and the Court below has decided all the issues only after the trial of the Suit. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly given its findings for all the issues and additional issues framed in the Suit. 18. According to the appellant, there was no custom or usage, to confer Sri Satari honours to Sri Manavala Mamunigal in the Alwar Prakeram of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kancheepuram on the third day of Brahmotsavam, during the Tamil month of Vaikasi from time immemorial. The appellant herein has admitted that he has filed the Suit only as a devotee of the sixth respondent temple. 19. It is not in dispute that Sri Devaraja Swemi Temple, known as Sri Varadharaja Perumal Temple at Kancheepuram is a well established ancient Vishnu temple, probably in hierarchy, next to Tirupathi as submitted by all the learned counsel appearing for both the parties in this Appeal. Admittedly almost of the Alwars and important Acharyars are having shrines with their idols in the temple, one such shrine is that of Sri Manavala Mamunigal, an Acharya belongs to Thengalai sect Vaishnavaite. It is not in dispute that Sri Vedanda Desiga is the head of Vadagalai sect of Vaishnavaits of Hindu Religion. As such Sri Vaishnavaits, followers of Sri Ramanuja acharyar are divided into two branches. It is an admitted fact that among the idols of the Alwars, Sri Namalvar wears "Thengalai Thirunamam" in the temple and among the Acharyars, Sri Ramanuja wears `Vadagalai Thirunarnam and the sixth respondent temple is governed by the H.R.& C.E. Department, under the supervision of the respondents 1 and 2 herein. 20. Sri Ahobila Mutt, a Sri Vaishnava institution of Vadagalai sect is having its mutt at Sannathi Street, Kancheepuram and the third respondent herein is representing the mutt, as its Muthirakartha. 20. Sri Ahobila Mutt, a Sri Vaishnava institution of Vadagalai sect is having its mutt at Sannathi Street, Kancheepuram and the third respondent herein is representing the mutt, as its Muthirakartha. According to the fourth respondent, the Ahobila Mutt of Kanchi, represented by its Muthirakartha had filed O.A. No.1 of 1988, before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Chennai, against the Executive Trustee of Sri Devaraja Swami Devasthanam, Kancheepuram, praying for certain honours to the Bimbams in Ahobila Mutt and for other honours. The Original Application was filed against the Executive Trustee and no other person was party to the O.A. No.1 of 1988, filed under Section 63(e) of the Act, 1959. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E Department was pleased to pass an order on 04.06.1990 in Re. No.46019/90, whereby ordered that the following should be practiced during Brahmotsavam, with effect from the date of issuance of the order: 1. On the third day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Garuda Sevai, the Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Sri Manavala Mamunigal idol, situated in the Alwar Prakarain of the Temple, when the Lord Davarajaswami comes in front of Sri Manavala Mamunigal Sannadhi. 2. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Mohini Alangaram, during the Mandagapadi, at Sri Ahobila Mutt situated at Sannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram, Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Srimath Sri Adhivan Satagopa Yatindra Maha Desikan, first jeer of Sri Ahobila Mutt. 3. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., on Mohini Alangaram Mandagapadi shall be performed at Thirukachi Nambi Sannadhi situated at T.R. Nambi Street, Little Kancheepuram and Satari honour shell be done to the idol of Thirukachi Nanibigal. 21. On the Application filed by one R. Seshadri, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department, Chennai, passed an order on 10. 1990. The Original Application had been filed under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959). In the said Application, Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee, Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Devasthanem, Kancheepuram has been referred as respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, considering O.A. No.1/88 and the connected records filed thereon and upon hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, had allowed the Application filed under Section 63 (e) of the Act. In the said Application, Assistant Commissioner/Executive Trustee, Arulmighu Devarajaswamy Devasthanem, Kancheepuram has been referred as respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, considering O.A. No.1/88 and the connected records filed thereon and upon hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, had allowed the Application filed under Section 63 (e) of the Act. As per the order, the Deputy Commissioner, held that K. Seshadri, who was the petitioner in O.A. No.1/88 was entitled to the honours of garland, parivattam and santhanam from Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Kancheepuram, during Thiruvadipooram, Swathi and Puratasi Kettai days and also on the fifth day of Brahmotsavam and that temple honours, viz, garland, parivattam and satari honours shall be conferred to the statue of Adhivan Sadagopa Yatindra Maha Desikan, installed inside the Ahobila Mutt, at Sannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram on the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e, Mohini Alangaram during the Mandagapadi and also during the Thiuvadipooram, Swathi and Puratasi Kettai days. 22. Subsequently, on 09.08.1991, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department, Chennai passed the order in S.M.R. No.8/91. It is seen that suo moto Revision Petition was ordered by the first respondent, under Section 69(2) of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) against the order, dated 10. 1990, passed in O.A. No.1/88 of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department, Chennai, allowing the claim of K. Seshadri, the respondent therein, under Section 63(e) of the Act. The order reads as follows: "The order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department, Madras in O.A.1/88, dated 10. 1990 is set aside. As agreed upon by the respondents order have been passed by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department, Madras in RC.46019/90, dated 6. 1990 with regard to conferment of certain honours during the 3rd and 5th day Brahmotsavam of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Little Kancheepuram at Manavala Marnunigal Sannadhi at Ahobila Mutt and at Tirukacthi Nambigal Sannadhi, which has been followed hitherto shall be continued." 23. Department, Madras in RC.46019/90, dated 6. 1990 with regard to conferment of certain honours during the 3rd and 5th day Brahmotsavam of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Little Kancheepuram at Manavala Marnunigal Sannadhi at Ahobila Mutt and at Tirukacthi Nambigal Sannadhi, which has been followed hitherto shall be continued." 23. In the suo moto revision order, dated 09.08.1991, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai, the first respondent herein, held that the respondents to the suo moto Revision Petition have agreed to settle the matter regarding the honours to be shown (1) to the idols of Sri Manavala Mamunigal inside the temple Program on the 3rd day of Brahmotsavam festival (2) to the idol of Sri Thirukatchi Nambigal on the 5th day of Brahmotsavam festival of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Little Kanchaepuram and also (3) to the idol of Sri Adivan Sadagopan, the first Jeer of Ahobila Math, situated in Sannadhi Street, Kancheepuram, outside the temple. The Commissioner has further stated in the order that the agreement reached was also put into practice during the Brahmotsavam festival in 1990 and 1991 to the satisfaction of both Thengalai and Vadagalai sects of Vaishnavaits and could see that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Chennai in O.A. No.1/88, dated 10. 1990 had not been in consonance with the agreement reached between the respondents therein and as such, the first respondent has set aside the same under Section 69(2) of the Act. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, the first respondent herein ordered the following practice shall be continued with regard to conferment of honours during 3rd and 5th day of Brahmotsavam of Sri Devarajaswami Temple, Little Kancheepuram, without any deviation. 1. On the third day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Garuda Sevai, the Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Sri Manevala Mamunigal idol, situated in the Alwar Prakaram of the Temple, when the Lord Devarajaswami comes in front of Sri Manavala Mamunigal Sannadhi. 2. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Mohini Alangaram, during the. Mandagapadi at Sri Ahobila Mutt situated at Sannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram, Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Srimath Sri Adhivan Sadagopa Yatindra Maha Desikan, first jeer of Sri Ahobila Mutt. 3. 2. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Mohini Alangaram, during the. Mandagapadi at Sri Ahobila Mutt situated at Sannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram, Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Srimath Sri Adhivan Sadagopa Yatindra Maha Desikan, first jeer of Sri Ahobila Mutt. 3. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., on Mohini Alangaram, a Mandagapadi shall be performed at Thirukachi Nambigal Sannadhi, situated at T.R. Nambi Street, Little Kancheepuram and Satari honour shall be done to the idol of Thirukachi Nambigal. 24. According to Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the order, dated 09.08.1991 passed by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Deparment, Chennai, the first respondent herein, is beyond the scope of Section 69(2) of the Act and as such liable to be set aside. 25. The appellant, who was examined as P.W.1 before the Trial Court has admitted in his evidence that he has filed the Suit in his individual capacity and not as representative of the Vadagalai sect of devotees of the 6th respondent temple. He has admitted in his evidence, that there are Sannathis of Sri Vedanda Desigar, Sri Namalvar, Sri Manavala Mamunigal and Sri Ramanujar, however, he did not know whether Sri Manavala Mamunigal Sannathi had been formed nearly 200 to 300 years back prior to the date of his deposing evidence. The appellant has admitted that he knew the Sannathi of Sri Manavala Mamunigal from the year 1952. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in the 6th respondent temple, `Pagalpathu and `Raapathu, `Athyayana Urchavam is being conducted every year. As per the function, during Pagalpathu, Athyayana Urchavam, the function is being celebrated for Alwars on the top of the hill, whereby all Alwars and Acharyars were being prayed for their presence, vedas and prapanthams being read in the function. Similarly, Raapathu celebration is being celebrated at the bottom of the hill. In the aforesaid celebration, Sri Manavala Mamunigal is also being honoured and Satari honour during Pagalpathu and Raapathu is being performed, as per the custom to all Alwars and Acharyars, including Sri Manavala Mamunigal. During Ipasi month, 10 days urchavam (celebrations) being done to Sri Manavala Mamunigal and on the final day celebration, Perumal deity is being brought to Sri Manavala Mamunigal Sannathi and the honours being performed three times on the day. During Ipasi month, 10 days urchavam (celebrations) being done to Sri Manavala Mamunigal and on the final day celebration, Perumal deity is being brought to Sri Manavala Mamunigal Sannathi and the honours being performed three times on the day. He has also admitted that Satari honour is given to Sri Manavala Mamunigal for about 45 days in a year in the Temple. During Garudasevai Urchavam, honours are being performed to all Alwars and Acharyars, according to their seniority. He had not denied that Sri Manavala Mamunigal has written "Devaraja Mangala Sasanam" in Sanskrit and "Upadesa Rathna Malai" in Tamil on Alwars and Acharyars. It is seen from the evidence that the appellant was specifically asked in the cross-examination, that in which manner, he was affected on account of the honours being given to Sri Manavala Mamunigal on the third day of Brahmotsavam (Garudasevai). According to him, the Satari honours affect the rights of Vadagalai sects. However, he has admitted in his evidence that pursuant to the order, dated 04.06.1990 Satari honours was given to the Acharyars at Devarajaswam Temple, during 1990 to 1992. He filed the Suit, seeking a decree setting aside the order of the first respondent, dated 09.08.1991, then filed a Petition to declare the order, dated 04.06.1990 was also not valid, by way of filing an amendment Petition. The appellant has not disputed that in all the three years, honours to Sri Manavala Mamunigal, honour to Sri Adhivan Sadagopa Yatindra Maha Dasikan at Ahobila Mutt and to the idol of Thirukatchi Nambigal are being given. He has admitted that both Vadagalai and Thengalai sects are devotees of Sri Devarajaswami Temple and that the first honour is being performed to Sri Namalvar during the third day of Brahmotsavam, Garudasevai. 26. In order to maintain the Suit, the appellant/plaintiff should have legal grievance and which would be the cause of action for filing the Suit. According to the appellant, he is only a devotee of the sixth respondent temple. If there is any basic violation, which leads to infringement of rights available to any devotee, the appellant as a devotee can question the same, by way of filing Suit or Writ Petition. 27. According to the appellant, he is only a devotee of the sixth respondent temple. If there is any basic violation, which leads to infringement of rights available to any devotee, the appellant as a devotee can question the same, by way of filing Suit or Writ Petition. 27. As per Section 63(e) of H.R. & C.E. Act, subject to the rights of Suit or Appeal provided under the Act, the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, has the power to inquire into and decide a dispute whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter. 28. It is seen that Ex.B.6 is a certified copy of the Judgment, dated 17.01.1941 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, made in A.S. No. 175 of 1934. As per the Scheme of this Judgment, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board is empowered to make rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the scheme on various aspects, relating to the administration of the temple. Paragraph 5 and 9 reads as follows : a) regulating the procedure at the election of honorary trustees, b) regulating the disposal of all disputes regarding the honours, usages and customs of the Devasthanam. 29. Even as per Section 63(e) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be has the power to inquire into and decide a dispute whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite relating to the religious institution. The Satari honour in question relates to the idol of an Acharyars, within the Temple premises and not to any living person. 30. According to the appellant herein, during famous Garuda Seva, on the earlier hours of the third day morning, the deity will go around the inner prakaram called Alwar Veethi and honour Sri Namalvar (Thengalai) and Sri Ramanujar (Vadagalai) with Satari as a special occasion and this practice is continued for a centuries and has gone unquestioned. No other Alwar or Acharyar used to get special honour on the date including Sri Vedanda Desigar and Sri Kanavala Mamunigal. No other Alwar or Acharyar used to get special honour on the date including Sri Vedanda Desigar and Sri Kanavala Mamunigal. It is not in dispute that as per the order dated 04.06.1990 Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai, the first respondent herein passed the order, whereby on the third day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Garuda Sevai, the Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Sri Manavala Mamunigal situated in the Alwar Prakaram, when the Lord Devaraja comes in front of Manavala Mamunigal Sannadhi and on the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Mohini Alangaram, during the Mandagapadi at Sri Ahobila Mutt situated at Sannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram, Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Srimath Sri Adhivan Satagopa Yatindra Maha Desikan, first jeer of Sri Ahobila Mutt and on the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., on Mohini Alangaram, a Mandagapadi shall be performed at Thirukachi Nambi Sannadhi situated at T.R. Nambi Street, Little Kancheepuram and Satari honour shall be done to Thirukachi Nambigal. Subsequently, suo moto Revision order in S.M.R. No.8 of 1991 was passed on 09.08.1991 under Section 69(2) of the Act against the order, dated 10. 1990 made in O.A. No.1 of 1988 by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Chennai, allowing the claim of the first respondent herein under Section 63(e) of the Act. 31. Section 69(2) of the H.R & C.E. Act reads as follows : "Any order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be in respect of which no Appeal has been preferred within the period specified in sub-section (1) may be revised by the Commissioner suo motu and the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of the proceedings as to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be. Any such order passed by the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be shall be deemed to have been passed by the Commissioner on an Appeal preferred to him under sub-section (1)." 32. Any such order passed by the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be shall be deemed to have been passed by the Commissioner on an Appeal preferred to him under sub-section (1)." 32. As per Section 69(1) of the Act, any person aggrieved by order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case nay be, under any of the foregoing Section of Chapter V of the Act, shall within 60 days from the date of publication of the order or of the receipt thereof by him, as the case may be, prefer an Appeal and the Commissioner may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. For a suo moto order, the aforesaid period of limitation is not applicable. Here in this case, on a perusal of the records relating to O.A. No.1 of 1988 of the Deputy Commissioner, Chennai, having satisfied that there was need to examine the illegality and correctness of the said order. Notice was caused by Commissioner, H.R & C.E. upon the persons interested in the matter to appear either in person or through their Advocate by fixing the date of enquiry. The order further reads that the Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Chennai had heard the first respondent and the counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 therein and as agreed the settlement by the parties to the S.M.R. No. 8 of 1991, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., ordered that the following practice should be continued to be followed with regard to conferment of honours during third and fifth day Brahmotsavam of Sri Devarajaswami tempter Little Kancheepuram, without any deviation. Accordingly on the third day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., Garuda Sevai, the Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Sri Manavala Mamunigal situated in the Alwar Prakaram, when the Lord Devaraja comes in front of Manavala Mamunigel Sannadhi. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavamr i.e., Mohini Alangaram, during the Mandagapadi at Sri Ahobila Mutt situated at Sannadhi Street, Little Kancheepuram, Sri Satari honours shall be conferred to Srimath Sri Adhivan Satagopa Yatindra Maha Desikan, first jeer of Sri Ahobila Mutt. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., on Mohini Alangaram, a Mandagapadi shall be performed at Thirukachi Nambi Sennadhi situated at T.R. Nambi Street, Little Kancheepuram and Satari honour shall be done to Thirukachi Nambigal. 33. On the fifth day of Brahmotsavam, i.e., on Mohini Alangaram, a Mandagapadi shall be performed at Thirukachi Nambi Sennadhi situated at T.R. Nambi Street, Little Kancheepuram and Satari honour shall be done to Thirukachi Nambigal. 33. In the suo moto Revision Petition, only the respondents 3 to 5 herein were the respondents. Admittedly, they were all given notice before the order, dated 09.08.1991 was passed by the Commissioner, H.R & C.E. As interested party, the appellant herein filed his objection to the suo moto Revision. 34. Even as per the plaint averments, for the suo moto Revision, ordered by the first respondent, notice was served on the appellant on 15.07.1991 for the hearing on 16.07.1991. However, according to the appellant, before he reached with his counsel to the office of the first respondent, enquiry was completed in the enquiry proceedings, but the same has been disputed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the written statement. It is seen that suo moto Revision in S.M.R. No.8 of 1991 has been passed by the first respondent on 09.08.1991 and not on 16.07.1991. In view of the compromise memo filed by the parties to the S.M.R. No.8 of 1991, notice of hearing dated 9.07.1991 had been issued to the parties. When there is a compromise between the parties to a dispute, nothing wrong in advancing the hearing after issuance of notice to both the parties. Further, admittedly, the appellant had come to know about the order, and filed the statutory Suit under Section 70 of the Act, after 150 days. As discussed earlier for preferring statutory Suit, under Section 70 of the Act, no notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is required and the Suit should be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order or publication of the order. 35. It is not in dispute that the devotees of the sixth respondent temple are both Thengalai sect and Vadagalai sect Vaishnavaits and Sri Manavala Mamunigal is the head of the Thengalai Vaishnavaits. Even according to the appellant, honours are being performed to Sri Manavala Mamunigal for 45 times in a year. As per the evidence of the manager of the sixth respondent temple, who was examined as D.W.2, who was also a Vaishnavait of Vadagalai sect, honours are being given to Sri Manavala Mamunigal for 55 times in a year. Even according to the appellant, honours are being performed to Sri Manavala Mamunigal for 45 times in a year. As per the evidence of the manager of the sixth respondent temple, who was examined as D.W.2, who was also a Vaishnavait of Vadagalai sect, honours are being given to Sri Manavala Mamunigal for 55 times in a year. The appellant as P.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that to his knowledge Sri Manavala Mamunigal Sannathi is in existence prior to 1952. Therefore, honouring the Thengalai Acharya Sri Manavala Mamunigal cannot be against the traditional custom followed by the Vaishnavaits in the temple. According to the appellant, there was no Satari honour on the third day Brahmotsavam to Sri Manavala Manumigal. 36. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, even as per the earlier order, dated 4.06.1990 has recognised the Satari honour being performed to Sri Manavala Mamunigal idol situated in the Alwar Prakaram of Lord Devarajaswami temple. Therefore, the burden is upon the appellant/plaintiff, who filed the statutory Suit under Section 70 of the Act. In the evidence, the appellant has stated that conferring Satari honour to Sri Manavala Mamunigal idol can be against Vadagalai sect of Vaishnavaits, however, only the appellant in a individual capacity has filed the Suit without evidence to show that there was no such honour being given to the said Thengalai Acharya. Strangely, the third respondent Muthirakartha of Ahobila Mutt is one of the important north sect (Vadagalai) Vaishnavaits, which is not in dispute. 37. Mr. V. Rangarajan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would contend that honouring a devotee is a basic and fundamental feature in a Vaishnava Temple. Even for ordinary people, Satari honour is being performed and hence, there is nothing wrong in honouring Sri Manavala Mamunigal, the head of south sect Vaishnavait. It is seen from the expert opinion given by Pattacharya of Sri Rangam that providing Satari honour to Sri Manavala Mamunigal is not against the custom and tradition of the Vaishnava temple. 38. Considering all those aspects and the evidence regarding Vaishnava tradition, I am of the view that there is nothing illegal or against the Vaishnava tradition in providing Satari honour on the third day of Brahmotsavam (Garuda Sevai) to Sri Manavala Mamunigal situated in the Alwar Prakaram of Sri Devarajaswami temple, Little Kancheepuram. 38. Considering all those aspects and the evidence regarding Vaishnava tradition, I am of the view that there is nothing illegal or against the Vaishnava tradition in providing Satari honour on the third day of Brahmotsavam (Garuda Sevai) to Sri Manavala Mamunigal situated in the Alwar Prakaram of Sri Devarajaswami temple, Little Kancheepuram. In the evidence, the appellant has admitted that as per the order of the first respondent, Satari honour shall be performed to idols of Sri Manavala Mamunigal on the third day of Brahmotsavam, Satari honour being provided to Sri Adhivan Ootagopa Yatindra Maha Desikan, first jeer of Sri Ahobila Mutt and to Sri Thirukatchi Nambigal during Mohini Alangaram and by the impugned order, the same has been recognised as practice in the temple. However, the appellant has not challenged the Satari honour being performed to other Acharyars, except Sri Manavala Mamunigal, which would show that the intention of the appellant is not to safeguard any customary practice. 39. It is not in dispute that in the sixth respondent temple, there is no separate sannathi for Namalvar, Madhurakavi Alwar and the other Acharyars and in the next sannathi, Sri Manavala Mamunigal and Madhurakavi Alwar and Acharyars in Sri Udayavar Sannathi, Poigai Alvar is the first Alwar. Nammalvar is the fifth Alwar and Madurakavi is having the same status of other alwars, though he composed poems on Namalvare. Nathamunigal was born long after these alwars. Yet Sri Satari honour is first shown to Namalvar, Madhurakavi and Nathamunigal. There is no evidence on the side of the appellant to show that Namalvar and Ramanujar alone were shown Satari honours on the Brahmotsavam Day. As admitted by the Manager of the temple, who was examined as D.W.2, 55 times Satari honours are given to Sri Manavala Mamunigal in a year. When such is a practice being followed, the appellant, being a devotee, without any basis, cannot raise any allegation against the first respondent in exercising his duty under Section 69(2) of the Act. Therefore, I answer the second point for determination in this Appeal against the appellant. 40. During the course of argument, this Court could understand about the continuing dispute between Vadagalai and Thengalai in putting Thirunamam to a temple elephant, which went up to the Honble Apex Court. As per the orders of the Honble Supreme Court, the Vadagalai Thirunamam and Thengalai Thirunamam were put alternatively. 40. During the course of argument, this Court could understand about the continuing dispute between Vadagalai and Thengalai in putting Thirunamam to a temple elephant, which went up to the Honble Apex Court. As per the orders of the Honble Supreme Court, the Vadagalai Thirunamam and Thengalai Thirunamam were put alternatively. Subsequently, the elephant died and there was a suggestion to have two elephants, so as to put Vadagalai Thirunamam to one elephant and Thengalai Thirunamam to another elephant. Similarly, there are perennial trivial dispute between the Vadagalai and Thengalai Vaishnavaits, so as to affect the smooth functioning of the reputed ancient Temple of Sri Devarajaswami, otherwise known as Varadharajaperumal Temple, Kancheepuram. It is not in dispute that both the sects have accepted Srimath Bhagavad Gita, wherein "Lord Krishna says that He is in all forms of God and as such, he is the receiver of the prayers and answering the prayers of all the living beings. 41. Chapter 9, Slogan 11 of Bhagavad Gita reads as follows : HINDI "avejananti mam mudha manusim tanumasritam param bhavamajananto mama bhutamahesvaram" As per this slogam, Lord Krishna says that he is Lord Maheswara. 42. In Chapter 10, Slogan 23, he says rudranarn sankaras casmi, that is among Rudhras, he is Lord Siva. In Chapter 10, Slogam 24, he says eenaninam aham skandah, whereby of generals, he is Kartikeya (Lord Muruga). Similarly in Thivaprapanjam, it says: Tamil The Divya Prabandham clearly conveys the concept of Sankara Narayana by describing `Sankara and Narayana as one and the same. Infact, Sri Vaishnavam never discriminate the devotees on the basis of their birth. 43. Among the Alwars, Madhurakavi Alwar, has been recognized as one of the Alwars, though he has composed his songs only on Namalvar and not on Mahavishnu. Therefore, Sri Vaishnavism recognizes Alwars and Acharyars, without any caste and other discriminations. In such circumstance, raising trivial disputes against performing Satari honour to one of the important Acharyar, namely Sri Manavala Mamunigal on the third day of Brahmotsavam cannot be accepted as violation of religious right of the appellant as a devotee. The third respondent, who is a representative of Sri Ahobila Mutt, one of the important branches of the North sect of Vaishnavaits has also recognized the Satari honour being performed to Sri Manavela Mamunigal as just and proper, since the same is available even to any ordinary human being. 44. The third respondent, who is a representative of Sri Ahobila Mutt, one of the important branches of the North sect of Vaishnavaits has also recognized the Satari honour being performed to Sri Manavela Mamunigal as just and proper, since the same is available even to any ordinary human being. 44. As per Section 63(e) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is empowered to decide a dispute, whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution regarding any other matter. The idol of Manavala Mamunigal cannot be construed as a person. 45. I am of the considered view that performing Satari honour to an idol of an Acharyar at the temple premises is within the purview of Section 63(e) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. Under Section 69(2) of the Act, the Commissioner, the first respondent herein is empowered with `suo moto power to revise the order. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., may call for and examine the records of the proceedings. It has been established, by way of evidence that the first respondent had given notice to the parties in O.A. No.1 of 1988. The appellant herein was also given notice, which is not in dispute. The expert opinion of various scholars in "Sri Vaishnavism" and the plea of the third respondent, representing one branch of the North Sect would clearly establish that performing Satari honour to Sri Manavala Mamunigal or any other Acharyar, either on the north sect or the south sect cannot be construed as violation of any custom or usage of the temple. Therefore, I am of the view that the grievance raised by the appellant herein has no legal basis. 46. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Trial Court is right in holding that it is a vexatious Suit filed, so as to create division and dispute between Hindu devotees, especially in Vaishnava sects. 47. On the above facts and circumstances, I hold that there is no error or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Court below in dismissing the Suit with cost, so as to interfere with the same. 48. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below, the Appeal is dismissed. 47. On the above facts and circumstances, I hold that there is no error or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Court below in dismissing the Suit with cost, so as to interfere with the same. 48. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below, the Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.